Do these four coloured lines represent four key constants?

Feel free to talk about anything and everything in this board.
User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Do these four coloured lines represent four key constants?

Postby Nikki Nyx » Mon Jul 24, 2017 12:16 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:Don't let Salomed distract from his ridiculous claims, by claiming he is being badly treated. That is exactly what all the "woosters" do to change the topic when their claims gets shredded.
Don't worry; I haven't. I hope that seeing his own words thrown back at him might make him think twice before thinking he's the innocent victim, when he's the one who's been verbally abusive.

Matthew Ellard wrote:Everyone here understands the large list of facts that knocks out Salomed's hilarious "Sonnets" claim. You have seen Salomed ignore all these points without comment. That is what he does. It's what Gorgeous does. It's what Placid does. It's what all the "woosters" do.
That's the frustrating thing. The conclusion that this is a hoax perpetrated by Green is not only logical, but also supported by all the available evidence. It literally doesn't matter whether the approximation of the constants are there or not; that's what Salomed, apparently, doesn't get. They could be there to ten decimal places each...or twenty, and it STILL wouldn't matter.

Matthew Ellard wrote:I see no reason to be nice to these people. They will keep coming back no matter what, because no one else pays them any attention. If you review the David Icke forum or God-like-Productions forum, you will see a 100 Salomeds, 100 Gorgeouses, 100 Placids all trying to out do each other with more outrageous claims, to get attention. They are very lonely people.
Perhaps I'm a bit more hopeful that people can be convinced with evidence, even though that's never been my experience IRL...except for myself, my daughter, and perhaps a few other people I know. I mean, if you presented evidence that overturned one of my long-standing viewpoints, my viewpoint would bloody well change based on the evidence. That's being rational, and everything else is being irrational, IMO.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26776
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Debunking Alan Green and Salomed

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Jul 24, 2017 1:57 am

salomed wrote:In my country when we do mathematics.......
salomed a year ago wrote: OK OK, I am a "stupid", "American", "Dumb", small time ........
You forgot. You already stated you are an American.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=18579&p=294448#p294430

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Do these four coloured lines represent four key constants?

Postby Nikki Nyx » Mon Jul 24, 2017 3:00 am

Being American is no excuse for being ignorant. It's a reason, but no an excuse, since ignorance can be remedied.

Source: I'm American.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26776
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Do these four coloured lines represent four key constants?

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Jul 24, 2017 3:54 am

Nikki Nyx wrote:Being American is no excuse for being ignorant. It's a reason, but no an excuse, since ignorance can be remedied. Source: I'm American.

That wasn't the point. The point is that Salomed can't remember all the different stories he has previously posted. He forgot that he claimed his father was a Dr of *********** and they watched a video together (in English) after coming back from overseas holidays, suggesting he lives at home with his parent/parents in the USA.

Let's see if Salomed can remember what his father is a Dr of.........

Simultaneously, Salomed said "I was studying Popper when you were all sucking popsicles" but doesn't know what a hypothesis is. :lol:

Salomed simply tells lies.

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1245
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: Do these four coloured lines represent four key constants?

Postby salomed » Mon Jul 24, 2017 6:27 am

Nikki Nyx wrote:Thank you. I accept your apology.


Thank you.
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1245
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: Do these four coloured lines represent four key constants?

Postby salomed » Mon Jul 24, 2017 6:35 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:Being American is no excuse for being ignorant. It's a reason, but no an excuse, since ignorance can be remedied. Source: I'm American.

That wasn't the point. The point is that Salomed can't remember all the different stories he has previously posted. He forgot that he claimed his father was a Dr of *********** and they watched a video together (in English) after coming back from overseas holidays, suggesting he lives at home with his parent/parents in the USA.

Let's see if Salomed can remember what his father is a Dr of.........

Simultaneously, Salomed said "I was studying Popper when you were all sucking popsicles" but doesn't know what a hypothesis is. :lol:

Salomed simply tells lies.


I have not lied Matthew. Though for sure my memory is appalling. I have many times offered to prove I am not lying but you never accept this because the only way to really prove something online, of such personal claims, is with real world and real time evidence.

What I am really guilty of with you, and this I feel shame for, is letting my ego let me get me into conflict. It starts of as a bit of fun sport but then I get sucked in and start wasting my time and wasting your time just to satisfy my ego. It is sad and I am sorry for that.
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26776
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Do these four coloured lines represent four key constants?

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Jul 24, 2017 6:55 am

salomed wrote: I have not lied Matthew.
You lied and forged evidence. Your forged "exact match" overlay of the British Library's "John Wright" version and the jpeg "William Aspley" version was just the latest lie.

salomed wrote:What I am really guilty of with you, and this I feel shame for, is letting my ego let me get me into conflict. It starts of as a bit of fun sport but then I get sucked in and start wasting my time and wasting your time just to satisfy my ego. It is sad and I am sorry for that.
It's a skeptic forum. Anyone who posts bull-shit claims gets the same harsh treatment.

We've had one fatality in the last six months (Zeuzzz) from someone believing their own forum bull-shit.

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1245
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: Do these four coloured lines represent four key constants?

Postby salomed » Mon Jul 24, 2017 7:00 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
salomed wrote: I have not lied Matthew.
You lied and forged evidence. Your forged "exact match" overlay of the British Library's "John Wright" version and the jpeg "William Aspley" version was just the latest lie.


As said, at the time I posted that I wan't aware of the distinction between the two publishers.
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26776
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Do these four coloured lines represent four key constants?

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Jul 24, 2017 7:38 am

salomed wrote:As said, at the time I posted that I wan't aware of the distinction between the two publishers.

Book-Sellers. William Aspley sold books under the sign of the parrot (his watermark on the page that I didn't get a chance to mention) and John Wright, who sold books at Christchurch gate.

The publisher was Thomas Thorpe. The printer was George Eld. The Master compositors were Wilson and/or Warden. The compositors worked from Shakespeare's handwritten notes as Shakespeare was away from London during the 1609 plague. That is why there are typos and missing punctuation all through the Sonnets

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1245
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: Debunking Alan Green and Salomed

Postby salomed » Mon Jul 24, 2017 8:58 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
salomed wrote:In my country when we do mathematics.......
salomed a year ago wrote: OK OK, I am a "stupid", "American", "Dumb", small time ........
You forgot. You already stated you are an American.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=18579&p=294448#p294430



That was in reply to you calling me:
You are yet another small time American 9/11 Truther, attention seeker, a dime a dozen....


I am not those things. Hence the "quotes". Actually, I am a bit of an attention seeker and I have watched Loose Change.
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Debunking Alan Green and Salomed

Postby Nikki Nyx » Mon Jul 24, 2017 4:45 pm

salomed wrote:Actually, I am a bit of an attention seeker
That you recognize and admit that is a giant first step. The second step is analyzing why. Then, you'll be at the root of the problem. Don't be Eleanor Rigby; be Salomed.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1245
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: Debunking Alan Green and Salomed

Postby salomed » Mon Jul 24, 2017 9:21 pm

Nikki Nyx wrote:
salomed wrote:Actually, I am a bit of an attention seeker
That you recognize and admit that is a giant first step.


I don't think it is that unusual, really. If we imagine the hours we spend here, what else could it be for but the satisfaction of our ego or our curiosity. Sometimes I write a post here and I know how destroyed it will get, but that is "ME" getting attacked, it is me being the focus of the negativity. And though it is negative it is not nothing. It is that Oscar Wilde quote writ large and writ pointlessly.

The second step is analyzing why.


I do not know. It is fun? It is often fun, but then when it gets so nasty that there can be no more fun, it is no longer fun. When I think of the negativity I have projected on others here, how can that be fun? And it is not real people on the face of it, but behind it, for at least some, of course it is real people. I really don't know if some people here are real people, with real lives and cares and vulnerabilities, or if they are just CIA Skepticbots, doing what they do. A key point is you cannot tell, there is not way to differentiate. So what should I assume?

When we think of how much time we spend here versus how much time we have alive, that is crazy shameful to me how much time I have wasted here, arguing. It is all ego, for me. That is sad and that is sorry, but what else can it be? It is sucky, I fail.

Then, you'll be at the root of the problem


Is it a problem any bigger than the problem of life? Am I really the only one here wasting and sucking? Life is so short. Reality is so uncertain.What should I do?
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26776
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Debunking Alan Green and Salomed

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Jul 24, 2017 10:58 pm

salomed wrote: That was in reply to you calling me....
You really can't remember any of your earlier posts can you? You talked about watching a video when you returned home with your parents from an overseas holiday and stated your father was a Dr of ******* at *********. ( no search engine for you)

Can you remember what you wrote?
:D

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26776
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Debunking Alan Green and Salomed

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Jul 24, 2017 11:05 pm

salomed wrote:What should I do?
Go waste people's time on the David Icke forum and take Gorgeous with you.
https://forum.davidicke.com/
David Icke.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Debunking Alan Green and Salomed

Postby Nikki Nyx » Tue Jul 25, 2017 1:49 am

salomed wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
salomed wrote:Actually, I am a bit of an attention seeker
That you recognize and admit that is a giant first step.
I don't think it is that unusual, really. If we imagine the hours we spend here, what else could it be for but the satisfaction of our ego or our curiosity. Sometimes I write a post here and I know how destroyed it will get, but that is "ME" getting attacked, it is me being the focus of the negativity. And though it is negative it is not nothing. It is that Oscar Wilde quote writ large and writ pointlessly.
Well, I didn't join to satisfy my ego, but to have discussions with other rational people, since they're rare IRL. Also, rational people tend to be educated, so another of my motivations was a belief that I would learn from others here. Additionally, I have a real pet peeve about irrational thinking. If I can contribute to its eradication in any small way, I feel that's time well-spent. And, lastly, I hoped interacting with others here would improve my writing skills, my ability to express my thoughts, and my own critical thinking skills.

salomed wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:The second step is analyzing why.
I do not know. It is fun? It is often fun, but then when it gets so nasty that there can be no more fun, it is no longer fun. When I think of the negativity I have projected on others here, how can that be fun? And it is not real people on the face of it, but behind it, for at least some, of course it is real people. I really don't know if some people here are real people, with real lives and cares and vulnerabilities, or if they are just CIA Skepticbots, doing what they do. A key point is you cannot tell, there is not way to differentiate. So what should I assume?
Try spending some time in the "just for fun" forums, like The Nexus and The Funny Pages. That's where you see members outside of debates, just being themselves. I mean, I haven't been a member that long, and I have no idea what anyone else looks like—in some cases, I don't know whether they're male or female—but I still have a strong sense of each person's personality, just from interacting with them on the daily. That doesn't mean we don't butt heads with each other on occasion...we do! Frequently! But we still laugh at each other's jokes.

salomed wrote:When we think of how much time we spend here versus how much time we have alive, that is crazy shameful to me how much time I have wasted here, arguing. It is all ego, for me. That is sad and that is sorry, but what else can it be? It is sucky, I fail.
I refuse to accept the concept of "wasted time." If I'm enjoying what I'm doing, then I'm "spending time," not wasting it. And if you feel that a concept is worth defending, then you're not wasting time by defending it, are you? Honestly, I've spent lots of time in research to support various arguments in this forum, and I don't feel I've wasted time...because I've gained knowledge.

salomed wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:Then, you'll be at the root of the problem
Is it a problem any bigger than the problem of life? Am I really the only one here wasting and sucking? Life is so short. Reality is so uncertain.What should I do?
Reality is not uncertain. If it can be proven to exist, it's real. If it can't be proven to exist, it's not real. If it can't be proven to exist, but sufficient evidence exists to support a prevailing theory, then you should probably behave as if it's real, e.g. gravity.

"Life is so short." That's completely subjective, and you know it. I'm 52. Should I lie down and die because most of my life is over? 52 years gone...I might have 40 years left, but I might only have 10. Should I spend those years being depressed about how short life is? Or should I carpe every diem with both hands? You know what my answer is.

As far as what you're doing here...well, you've chosen to bring Green's concept to a group of intelligent, educated, and skeptical people. I'm curious as to what you expected, compared to what actually happened. Because you could have gone to any number of forums who would have believed Green's concept without further proof. Were you looking for substantiation? Or deconstruction? Did you want to be talked into your belief? Or out of it?

Last point. Self-analysis is a healthy undertaking...but you have to be prepared to face some unpleasant truths about yourself, understand that you can change, and continue to move forward without repeatedly beating yourself up for the mistakes of the past. You're human...just like me. Just like everyone else here. We all make mistakes.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8245
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Debunking Alan Green and Salomed

Postby Poodle » Tue Jul 25, 2017 6:04 am

Nikki Nyx wrote:... We all make mistakes.

Nah. The Pope can't, and I think the Queen may be somewhere around there. Vladimir the Putin is close, too, and I believe that the Donald is making an attempt to join the ranks.

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1245
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: Debunking Alan Green and Salomed

Postby salomed » Tue Jul 25, 2017 9:32 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
salomed wrote: That was in reply to you calling me....
You really can't remember any of your earlier posts can you? You talked about watching a video when you returned home with your parents from an overseas holiday and stated your father was a Dr of ******* at *********. ( no search engine for you)

Can you remember what you wrote?
:D


I don't need to remember because I don't lie. I know what my father is doctor of, even if I don't have your rather peculiar memory for other people's details. The numerical total is 86:)
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Debunking Alan Green and Salomed

Postby Nikki Nyx » Tue Jul 25, 2017 3:06 pm

Poodle wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:... We all make mistakes.

Nah. The Pope can't, and I think the Queen may be somewhere around there. Vladimir the Putin is close, too, and I believe that the Donald is making an attempt to join the ranks.

:lol:
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26776
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Salomed's second forgery

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sat Aug 05, 2017 2:21 am

I now set out and describe Salomed's second forgery. Salomed opened a thread and posted this image and claimed mathematical shapes were encoded into the title page.
Sonnets shapes (1).JPG

salomed wrote: I was reading Popper while you were sucking on popsicles


However Carl Popper's law of hypothesis falsification states that any contrary evidence to a hypothesis, ends that hypothesis. Skeptics pointed out to Salomed that as there were other punctuation marks that did not fit into his "code" and indeed, Salomed could not write out any fixed code, at all as no code existed. That ended Salomed's claim.

So what does Salomed do?

Salomed opens an new thread in a different section to hide his earlier posts and then Salomed posts a new image, that is not the title page, and removes all the text markings that do not fit into his magical shapes. Salomed then makes the same claim using his new forged image, that is no longer the Sonnets title page.

Sonnets Salomeds deception.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest